At the time I was confused about my place in the Jewish faith. I’d
been raised solidly Charedi in Boro Park, taught from a young age to
keep shabbos and kashrus, to daven three times a day, to
value torah, and to respect gedolim. Gedolim were the closest thing we
had to prophets. They didn’t talk to God, but after a lifetime of
devotion to God, the study of Torah, and living piously, living as an
example for the rest of us to follow, surely they were the most
qualified to tell us what God wanted of us.

But that sort of devotion surely must come at a price, a certain
detachment from the mundane, from the day-to-day of our lay-lives. It’s
no wonder they didn’t care for anything about the rampant sexual abuse in
their communities, no wonder that when they were handed a case to
adjudicate they made the incorrect choice. It wasn’t their fault, they
simply didn’t understand the exactly nature of the problem they were
adjudication. They simply didn’t understand what it means for a victim
to feel so abandoned, betrayed, and violated by their friends, family,
and community that the only apparent way out is suicide. They’d surely
they’d never experienced being in such a mental space.

Surely they’d never been in so much pain that the only way to numb
it, to make it somewhat bearable, survivable, was to stay drunk or high
for long enough to function. Surely they’d never felt so out of control
that were compelled to stuff themselves to make themselves feel full of
something other than pain only to empty themselves out again with a well
placed finger down their throats; surely they’d never felt the need to
exert a similar control over something – anything – in their lives by
not eating.

No, they couldn’t possibly be very experienced these things. And why
would they? They were holy, as close to perfect as a human being could
be, and God rewards those who follow God’s law so devotedly. It wasn’t
their fault that they’d never experienced such pain. They’d worked hard
for their rewards. Their lack of perspective wasn’t a flaw, but a
testament to their righteousness. Their detachment was both a byproduct
and a reward of the lives they’d led.

But surely these paragons, once informed of the pain we were
experiencing, once confronted, not adversarially but respectfully,
unlike those other activists who were just out to shame them, mock
their torah, they’re communities, and their devotion to both, activists
who were simply self-interested, ridiculing people who by contrast made
them look like the pleasure-seeking self-justifying sinners they
surely were – if they were approached by someone who walked in both sets
of shoes, a survivor and a devoted member of their community – surely
they’d have to take notice and act to help us.

I started to talk to people about getting me some meetings with the
men I’d grown up revering. At the time I’d started writing, but still
didn’t have my own blog, so I’d hand my articles to other blogs for
publication. In Novemeber of 2012, Avi Shafran wrong an article for
Cross Currents titled The Evil Eleventh, in which he responded to a 2006 New York Magazine article by Robert Kolker,
which speculated that abuse in the Orthodox Jewish world might be more
prevalent than it is elsewhere. Shafran, in his response, contended that
since there are no statistics, Kolker’s speculative assertions were an
“unmitigated insult to the Judaism,” and likened it, due to his reliance
on information obtained by a handful of advocates and survivors, to
“visiting Sloan Kettering and concluding that there is a national cancer
epidemic raging.”

The rest of his response was a classic example of deflecting by
focusing attention on the Jimmy Savile case in England, and engaging in
No True Scotsmanism, declaring anyone who would do such a thing ipso
facto not a religious Jew, thereby – somehow – making it not our
problem.

Respectful as I was of gedolim at the time – many of whom Shafran
represented as spokesman for Agudath Israel, and by extension
the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah, and distrustful to the point of disdain, at
times, of the advocates and activists involved in the issue of child
sexual abuse, I nevertheless wrote a response which I intended to
publish on a friend’s blog. I figured, however, that it was only fair to
send an advance copy to Shafran for comment before publishing.

After emailing back and forth about the article, it seemed that he
agreed with my main points, and that my article, as I had intended to
publish it, was unfair. He seemed like someone I could talk to, a
reasonable person who genuinely cared about the issue, and, given half a
chance, would do what he could to help. I told him I would not publish
my response, and we set up a time to talk on the phone.

We ended up talking for four nights over the next two weeks, each
conversation lasting a couple of hours. I had prepared notes. I knew I
wouldn’t get anywhere on many of the topics I raised, but I figured I’d
raise them anyway.

Issues like sex education in yeshivos, acknowledging the harm done –
whether anything could be done about it or not – in segregating the
sexes until marriage, acknowledging – whether anything could be done
about it or not – the problems caused by our general reticence to use
proper terminology when discussing physical anatomy or sexuality,
refusing to discuss sexuality as a topic, and how much harder it makes
discussing non-consensual sexual encounters when even consensual
encounters are considered taboo. Then there was the fact
that teachers, and yeshiva administrations in general are unwilling to
allow students to discuss issues they’re having in their personal lives
with faith, with the opposite sex, drugs, depression, etc, without fear
of expulsion, and that by the time they reach a yeshiva that does allow
such discussion between students and faculty, it’s too late.

Then we moved on to the problems caused by sexual abuse, and the
terrible suffering it causes to its victims. I ran him through all the
problems, both mental and physical, caused by sexual abuse, some which
I’d developed having been abused myself for years.

Throughout all of it, he listened sympathetically, sometimes even
empathetically. He acknowledged all of my concerns. He admitted that
there were issues with the way our communities raise children, and he
acknowledged the damage caused by all of these concerns. I thought I was
getting somewhere. I thought, finally someone who’s on my side, who has
access to gedolim, who can actually help me change things for the
better.

Shortly following the 2011 Agudah Convention, Shafran posted the
following psak on Cross Currents, which operates as Agudah’s de facto
blog. The psak was posted by Shafran as an official Agudah statement:

Where there is “raglayim la’davar” (roughly, reason to believe) that
a child has been abused or molested, the matter should be reported to
the authorities. In such situations, considerations of “tikun ha’olam”
(the halachic authority to take steps necessary to “repair the world”),
as well as other halachic concepts, override all other considerations.

This halachic obligation to report where there is raglayim
la’davar is not dependent upon any secular legal mandate to report.
Thus, it is not limited to a designated class of “mandated reporters,”
as is the law in many states (including New York); it is binding upon
anyone and everyone. In this respect, the halachic mandate to report is
more stringent than secular law.

However, where the circumstances of the case do not rise to the
threshold level of raglayim la’davar, the matter should not be reported
to the authorities. In the words of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, perhaps
the most widely respected senior halachic authority in the world today,
“I see no basis to permit” reporting “where there is
no raglayim la’davar, but rather only ‘eizeh dimyon’ (roughly, some mere
conjecture); if we were to permit it, not only would that not result in
‘tikun ha’olam’, it could lead to ‘heres haolam’ (destruction of the
world).” [Yeshurun, Volume 7, page 641.]

Thus, the question of whether the threshold standard of raglayim
la’davar has been met so as to justify (indeed, to require) reporting is
critical for halachic purposes. (The secular law also typically
establishes a threshold for mandated reporters; in New York, it is
“reasonable cause to suspect.”) The issue is obviously fact sensitive
and must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

There may be times when an individual may feel that a report or
evidence he has seen rises to the level of raglayim la’davar; and times
when he may feel otherwise. Because the question of reporting has
serious implications for all parties, and raises sensitive halachic
issues, the individual should not rely exclusively on his own judgment
to determine the presence or absence of raglayim la’davar. Rather, he
should present the facts of the case to a rabbi who is expert in halacha
and who also has experience in the area of abuse and molestation –
someone who is fully sensitive both to the gravity of the halachic
considerations and the urgent need to protect children. (In addition, as
Rabbi Yehuda Silman states in one of his responsa [Yeshurun, Volume 15,
page 589], “of course it is assumed that the rabbi will seek the advice
of professionals in the field as may be necessary.”) It is not
necessary to convene a formal bais din (rabbinic tribunal) for this
purpose, and the matter should be resolved as expeditiously as possible
to minimize any chance of the suspect continuing his abusive conduct
while the matter is being considered.

While the first four clauses of the psak may not seem all that
objectionable, despite the comparison of “reasonable causes to suspect”
determined by mental health and law enforcement professionals
to raglayim ledavar determined by average, untrained community rabbis,
the fifth clause is what’s truly problematic about the psak.

The fifth clause seems to indicate that since the average person is
not an expert in what constitutes raglayim ledavar, a rabbi should be
consulted in every case, either to establish the presence
of raglayim ledavar, or to affirm it. What that essentially means, to
most people, is that regardless of whether or not your own common sense
tells you that there’s clearly raglayim ledavar, you should consult your
rabbi anyway just to make sure.

By then I’d been active long enough in survivor communities to have
heard countless stories of survivors who had been browbeaten into
silence by rabbis who were either ignorant of the damage caused by
sexual abused and therefore felt more sympathy either for the abuser who
could potentially face serious prison time, or the abuser’s family who
would suffer if their loved one was arrested and publicly charged, or
who simply persuaded and pressured survivors into silence because they
had a vested interest in protecting the abuser. I’d seen the damage
caused by this psak, and I wanted Shafran to address my concerns. Surely
we could work something out.

I told him my concerns, and he told me that I had gotten the psak all
wrong. That it didn’t actually mandate consulting rabbis in every case.
That surprised me, so I asked him for specific examples of cases that
would or wouldn’t require consulting a rabbi prior to reporting.

According to Shafran, if someone is the victim of abuse, they
obviously have raglayim ledavar, and can report without consulting a
rabbi. If someone is the parent or guardian of a child who clearly seems
like they were abused, or clearly says that they were abused, then you
have raglayim ledavar, and can report without consulting a rabbi. The
only situation under the psak, according to Shafran, in which you’d
actually have to consult a rabbi, is if a child tells you that something happened, but can’t or won’t elaborate, and you’re not sure what they mean.

While the proper protocol for such a situation is to take the child
to a mental health professional for evaluation, this interpretation of
the psak as laid out by Shafran seemed damned near reasonable. I was
stunned. It actually seemed like a decent compromise, a promising
starting point. The psak actually was progress. The advocates were
wrong. But why did they have this misconception, and why
didn’t Agudah do anything to remedy it?

I asked Shafran, still stunned by what he’d told me, why
this psak wasn’t more widely publicized, more publicly explained? Why
was this psak, as he’d explained it, published in mainstream Charedi
newspapers, like Yated and Hamodia? Why was Agudah not taking out
two-page spreads to both defend themselves against the baseless
accusations of angry bloggers, and to make sure that children in the
community were protected under this new, progressive psak?

Because we don’t want the laypeople interpreting the psak on their own and misapplying it.

That was the response I got.

But why do community rabbis not know about this psak? How are they
expected to make the proper decisions if they don’t even know the
framework in which they’re expected to operate? I didn’t get a good
answer for this.

Alright, but what about having a dedicated panel that’s publicly
known to adjudicate sexual abuse cases, and evaluate whether or not they
meet the criteria of raglayim ledavar, a panel that would be
accountable for the rulings they’d render?Well, Shafran explained, firstly such a thing wouldn’t be legal.
Secondly, no rabbi would want to be the one to step forward and take the
lead on such a thing. It would earn them criticism, and cause conflicts
with the institutions they lead or represent, jeopardize their
positions, or the financial futures of their yeshivos, and no one would
want to accept that kind of responsibility.

What if the gedolim came out publicly and did more to raise
awareness? Surely, if they took leadership on this, if they all made the
issue front and center as a problem that the frum community needs to
tackle head-on, rabbis who wanted to become more proactive in fighting
against child sexual abuse would feel more comfortable making themselves
available.

It was then that Shafran managed my expectations of gedolim.

They have the same problem. They don’t feel they can take that risk,
because they still have to worry about their communities, institutions,
and positions.

And right there, at that moment, is when the gedolim lost my faith.

“I don’t understand,” I exclaimed bitterly, “Is the dog wagging its tail, or is the tail wagging the dog?”

After I’d calmed down a little bit, apologized for my outburst, and
assimilated this world-shattering piece of information, I got back down
to business.

Ok, well, if the gedolim aren’t going to help, what can I do to raise
awareness in the community? Could Shafran help me get a foot in the
door with some of the frum newspapers and magazines so I could publish
articles about abuse, and raise community awareness?

Yated, Hamodia, Mishpacha, Ami, and Zman would never take them, he said.

Not even if they were told to?

No.

So what do I do?

Start at the bottom. Go to the Flatbush Jewish Journal. They’ll be
more likely to publish something about sexual abuse, provided its
written respectfully, in a way that doesn’t accuse the whole community
of complicity. Start there. Work your way up.

Can you call the editor in chief and tell him that you’re sending me along?

No.

Can I tell him you sent me?

No.

Can I drop your name when I talk to him?

No.

So after four days of talking, after all the things we’ve agreed
upon, after all the concern you showed, you can’t help me with anything?
Even this? What have I gotten from this?

תפסת מרובה לא תפסת

I’ve since been disabused of all the misconceptions I’ve had
regarding gedolim. I should have known, but all the gedolim I’d tried to
get meetings with had already met with survivors, had already heard
everything I’d wanted to say to them, and their paid had similarly
fallen on deaf ears.

I’ve since lost the illusion I had of gedolim as saintly beings with a
holy disconnection from mundane reality. They know. But they’re people.
They have self-interest. They have ambition. They like power, and
money. They’re the same as everyone else. Nothing greater or lesser.
Just regular people in charge of regular institutions. They don’t know
God any better than the rest of us do. They don’t have any special
insight that we don’t. Their ability to use their sechel isn’t any
different from ours. There’s nothing innately special about any of them.

They’re gedolim because they have power. They run powerful
institutions. They control powerful amounts of money. They have powerful
amounts of influence. That’s it. Nothing special.

I lost a fair chunk of my innocence when I realized this. I no longer
had heroes to look up to. I no longer had any paragons of virtue after
which to model my life. But I’ve met some. There are people I consider
tzaddikim. People who have literally stood between a gun and its
intended target. People whose careers and public profiles have suffered
tremendously because they refused to budge on their principles. People
who have publicly acknowledged their complicity in protecting abusers in
the past, but have since publicly taken accountability, apologized
unreservedly, educated themselves about the issue, and have become some
of the leaders in our cause.

Those are people worthy of respect.

And the key difference between them? They are respected but don’t
demand respect. They are beloved but don’t demand love. They don’t
command awe. They don’t command worship. They’re not the kind of people
who would make you walk backwards out of a room they’re occupying so you
don’t turn your back on them. They’re always willing to offer advice if
asked, but would never demand that you seek their counsel.

They’re the real gedolim, but they would bristle at the title.

I only came to this realization about gedolim because I came close
enough to see their weaknesses. Most people in their communities are too
blinded by the mirages they see to recognize these weaknesses. That’s
why we’re bringing the issue to the frum community. That’s why ZA’AKAH
is protesting outside of the Novominsker Rebbe’s shul. To show the
community that we’re not ignoring the issue just because
the gedolim tell us to, that the gedolim are not operating in the best
interests of our children, but the best interests of the institutions
they lead, that there are people out there who see their pain, and care
enough to do something about it, and that if they should choose to speak
up, we’ll proudly give them a voice.

Join us this Sunday at 3 PM, in front of the Novominsker Shul at 1644
48th street, to protest agudah’s rape enabling policies. Because that’s
all their psak does. That’s all Yaakov Perlow accomplished in issuing
that psak. By requiring victims to consult a rabbi before reporting
child sexual abuse to the authorities, all that’s accomplished is the
enabling of coverups by community rabbis either too ignorant, or too
biased to make the right decisions.

The only proper response to abuse is reporting to the authorities. And let no gadol tell you otherwise.

Tendler-Like Teacher Says He Only Pursued Students After School!

World's Greatest Criminal Mugshots!

If Your Child Gets Raped - Go First To Your Rabbi - די באַסטערדז!

For My Israeli Readers! צפייה ביקורתית של יהדות אורתודוקסית

CLICK!

Mazel Tov - Rabbi Hershel Schachter!

CLICK ABOVE PHOTO! Rabbi Moshe Feinstein states the very marriage of a gentile woman to a non observant Jew, is equivalent to an open declaration that she will not observe the precepts. This is so, because it is highly unlikely that the gentile member of such a union, will be more committed to Judaism than her remiss Jewish husband (certainly when they are living together prior to their marriage). Unlike mental or tacit negations, explains Rav Feinstein, open declarations do invalidate conversions. When such cases appear before a rabbinical court, its members actually become witnesses to an acceptance declaration that is not sincere. Therefore, it is no longer a tacit insincerity, but rather an obvious one. As such, they are forbidden to sanction the conversion. Regardless of what this Jewish court may declare, the conversion is invalid and the person is not deemed a member of the Jewish nation. In Iggros Moshe, Letters of Moshe (Yoreh De’ah, no. 157), he writes that “According to the Law, it is certain that one who converts for the sake of marriage, does not intend to keep the commandments, and is not a proselyte at all.”

The Tendler Disease in the News - Again!

CLICK!

Child Molestor is Castrated in Plea Deal!

CLICK ON CUT 'EM OFF TENDLER!

We Are In A Time When The Sheep May No Longer Trust The Shepherds!

CLICK!

Tendler Country - Ex - High School Principal Gets 8 Years For Molesting Students!

New Square Appoints Vaad To Deal With Sexual Abuse!

Lakewood Kollel Opens In Senegal!

Scandals Tests Trust in Leadership!

Rabbi Matt Salomon Offers The Pope His Help!

CLICK ON PHOTO!

Oy! Does He Have A Headache!

CLICK ON YOSEL!

Child Abuse - Chipping Away At The Wall Of Silence!

CLICK ON BRIDGE - FOR SALE AT THE AGUDATH ISRAEL!

Rav Yosef Blau Shlita

***CLICK ON PHOTO!*** "Batei Din in our times are not effective in dealing with criminal behavior. Lacking the investigative arm of the police and having restrictive standards of testimony they can not establish guilt. When the culprit is charismatic, he can often get protégés who feel indebted to him to lie to the Beis Din. It takes years before those who have been abused as youngsters to openly face their abuser."

Kolko's Office Sign - Auctioned On eBay!

I'm a bit concerned about Ehud - he can't seem to keep his hands off of me!

Ehud asked me to pardon him!

Looks like George has been hangin' with Bill Clinton!

I look into your eyes --- and I see a rotten crook!

Did you hear the one about the rabbi & the priest? Rabbi Kolko penetrated the priest (oh father)...